(Continuing the discussion from page 7 or so...)

But can we approach this scientifically? What if we took the "top hits" (most-played on the radio or something) from the 70's and set them side-by-side with an equal number of "top hits" from the 00's, and then had the MB population vote on which decade produced better popular music?

I'm not so interested in the "music has gotten worse" debate as I am the "popular, radio music has gotten worse" debate, because I certainly feel that such is the case.

Yes, but that kind of supports the point of 'experimental by pop standards'. I actually really enjoy The White Album, Abbey Road, Sgt. Pepper, and Magical Mystery Tour. I think they're brilliant albums, but definitely pop albums, and definitely evidence that rock, and pop are not really different beasts. Also, my frustration of he hypocrisy of people who listen to dated pop music only, rip into music that was much more complicated and/or experimental at the time, then turn around, and are frustrated because the new pop music is even simpler, and follows even more mass producible formulas.

Bingo, and I think it's the radio format itself that hinders music. If anything, thanks to the Internet, underground, experimental, and advanced music has ten times the chance it did 10 years ago. If anything, music is getting better.

^Yes, that's it exactly. I'm fairly certain radio stations are the real issue here. They're essentially the medium through which music is exposed to many people, and pop stations are incredibly formulaic now, is why when they listen to oldies stations or hear music from previous decades they think "It was so much better then." this is a really half-brained argument and I find that most people who make it eventually stop making it when their musical tastes mature.

What isnt pop? Not all of The Beatles songs were simple in structure, as I exemplified in my previous comment. Its just such a broad term. So much music can fit under that umbrella of pop. I dont see the point in generalizing so much music by calling it all "pop." I think a lot of that music deserves a more detailed analysis. While todays pop may all be formulaic, that wasnt always the case.

Generally, "pop" might refer to "Popular music" rather than "Art Music" or "Traditional Music". This includes genres like Jazz, country, rock, and "pop music", which itself is a nearly impossible genre to nail definitively, but is basically understood to feature simple song structures and repetition.

Pop songs arent always simple though. You have albums like revolver and sgt peppers, which contained some experimental qualities. According to wikipedia, "Along with Sgt. Peppers, The Beach Boys concept album Pet Sounds (1966) has also been stated as pioneering the (art rock) genre with its artistic ambitions."

You are aware people are still recording with analog instruments, right? From one of the best albums I've heard in years:


****ed Up - "The Other Shoe" - YouTube

A punk-rock opera? Count that as experimentation in my book.

I would say this isn't pop (and it came out the same year as Revolver):

Its free jazz. Obviously different from The Beatles. You can label it or generalize it with broad terms like "pop" all you want. Are there different types of pop? Yes. Are there different types of music? Yes. In the end, it all falls into the category of music.

You asked "what isn't pop?" I was giving you an example of something that isn't pop from the same time period as the Beatles.